Subjects

Monday, October 15, 2012

Dick Ingram (Stockholm Syndrome)

Dick Ingram (Stockholm Syndrome)

Term: Stockholm
Syndrome was first coined by Dr. Nils Bejerot, a medical researcher working in
areas of patient addiction and a psychiatric consultant to the police in
Stockholm, Sweden. In fact, the term
originates from a failed 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, when several
would-be robbers kept a number of bank employees hostage, only to release them
from the vault some five days later.
After release, the captives (one man and several women) described positive
feelings for the robbers and, surprisingly, disdain for the police who would
have been their rescuers. The term has
come to mean an amalgam of psychological responses to being held captive or
hostage; indeed, it has been used to justify the strange and often erratic
behaviors of seemingly normal people: Patti Hearst (1974), Elizabeth Smart
(2010), Mary McElroy (1933), and …

In some cases of the
psychological abnormality, the need to identify with the assailant is so
overwhelming that the victim actually seeks solutions for and provides
assistance to the aggressor.

Once again,
after a period of only a few months (since April 2012), Mr. Dick Ingram felt
compelled to enter the political/corporate fray to suggest cutting benefits as
a cost savings for the State of Illinois’ fiscal budgetary woes. In an interview with Crain’s, Ingram is
quoted as saying, “Look at every other state that’s done pension reform – what
have they done? They’ve changed the COLA
because that’s where the cost is” (www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121003/NEWS02/121009921?template=printart ). Crain’s
article also described Ingram’s remarks as strongly suggesting “that cuts in cost of living benefits are
inevitable for more than 360,000 teachers and retirees outside of Chicago.” Foes to
defined-benefit programs seized upon the new hypothesis by Ingram
immediately.

Just as in
April, leaders of the Chicago business consortium responsible for the earlier
attempts to cut benefits via SB512 (May 2011)and the latest, proposed attempt via
SB1673 (May 2012)were quick to embrace Ingram’s suggestions as a positive
response and affirmation of their own position.
In Springfield, Ingram’s comments gave continued sustenance to SB1673, a
bill that would cut benefits in the guise of coercive choices for the public
sector employees. Tyrone Fahner, head of the corporate group
Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago, reacted favorably. Fahner agreed with the idea that more should
be done to cut cost-of-living benefits: “There is not a single proposal that
does anything to recognize that the COLAs are the largest and biggest driver
affecting the viability of the pension,’ Fahner said in an interview” (www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121003/NEWS02/121009921?template=printart ).

In fact, it was Fahner who
echoed Ingram’s earlier annoucements in April at a forum at Loyola University
provided by the Better Government Association that “even the head of the TRS
recognizes its insolvency,” after Ingram had projected the TRS fund’s inability
to pay out benefits for very much longer in his new darker vision of retirement
for teachers.

Let’s also not forget that
corporate leaders and anti-pension legislators were also delighted to use
Ingram’s statements a month before the Loyola program regarding the “new
reality” and the possibility that a “funded retirement was in itself a benefit.”

In defense, earlier as now,
Ingram had made it clear that he was just spinning intellectual considerations,
not really offering or promoting affirmations of the proposed cuts in actives’
and retirees’ benefits, cuts vehemently opposed by all five public sector
unions (and, hopefully, their leadership).
Likewise, he once again issued a memo to the TRS Board in which he rationalized
his comments as never having advocated or having proposed a change in the COLA
for TRS members. NOTE: In fact, Ingram goes on to note that he could not “propose”
such an item because it was already part of a bill being considered (SB1673)
and, therefore, had already been proposed.
Say what?

Patti Hearst: I appeared
after the robbery began.

Bank Teller: But you had a gun. And you yelled, “This is a stick up.”

Patti Hearst: But I was
just making an observation. It appeared
that it was a stick up.

Bank Teller: Say what?

It’s not like this hasn’t
happened before with Ingram. In fact,
Ingram’s loose-cannon comments happen over and over again.

Here’s an excerpt from
Pension Vocabulary of April 15 (entitled Appeasement), in which we looked at one more of
Ingram’s rebuttals to questions regarding inappropriate and injurious comments
as a head of TRS. Mr. Ingram printed an
editorial in the Chicago Tribune on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, that stated
clearly:

“Neither I nor Teachers Retirement System is proposing
any changes in member benefits, especially a reduction in the current annual
cost-of-living adjustment…It is not our role at TRS to suggest a solution to
this problem.”

Four paragraphs later, Mr. Ingram once again warns
that he has told his board significant changes must occur in order to avoid
insolvency, and these changes need come from newly generated revenue
sources.

“For the media, he has “outlined possible areas where lawmakers
may look for a solution. There are only
a few options available and none is very pleasant to discuss – changes in the
cost of living adjustment; in member contributions; in retirement age; and in
the benefit formula; as well as increased revenues through taxes” (Teacher
Benefits. Voice of the People: Chicago Tribune. 10 April 2012.).

Here we are again.

A recently drafted letter (October
11, 2012) by President Dan Montgomery of the Illinois Federation of Teachers
declares Ingram unfit as Director of TRS.
Perhaps Dan Montgomery remembers Ingram’s earlier blunders and fumbling
attempts to recover, but it is clear that IFT leadership has had quite enough.

"Mr. Ingram may think he
can mislead the members of the TRS Board of Trustees into believing that his
remarks do not violate their fiduciary responsibility or their own resolutions
regarding TRS advocacy. We have more
faith in the board members than that.
Mr. Ingram would like the public and other unions to believe his
comments are merely an intellectual exercise and not meant to promote his own
preferred solutions to the pension crisis (Fred Klonsky).

About Me

I am a retiree, political activist, social advocate and community volunteer. I taught at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange for 34 years in the Language Arts classroom and worked as an administrator for several years. My current avocations include various community outreach and assistance programs. Having benefitted from employment in a collegial, reflective teaching environment that encouraged dedication and professionalism, I continue to seek the promotion of education at all levels as a long-term effort combining talent, perseverance, commitment, and constant professional growth - not a blind adherence to a business model of measured production.

Copyrights & Fair Use

This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.